The City of Topeka has filed a motion to significantly reduce the legal fees requested by attorneys representing two female police administrators, Capt. Colleen Stuart and Maj. Jana Kizzar, in their successful discrimination lawsuit. The city alleges that the attorneys’ billing is excessively high and includes charges for non-attorney-level tasks.
Attorneys Request $915,162.50 in Fees; City Proposes Reduction to $332,212.50
Attorneys representing Stuart and Kizzar have asked a federal judge to authorize payment of $915,162.50 in attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs.
However, Amanda Vogelsberg, representing the city, argued that the fees should be reduced to about 36% of the requested amount, or $332,212.50. The motion to reduce fees was filed on Dec. 12 by Vogelsberg, who cited numerous issues with the attorneys’ billing practices.
Key Details of the Dispute
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Requested Fees | $915,162.50 |
| Proposed Reduction by City | $332,212.50 |
| Hours Billed by Attorneys | 1,352.75 |
| City’s Proposed Billable Hours | 991.45 |
| Hourly Rates Requested | $550 to $850 |
| City’s Suggested Rates | $250 to $450 for attorneys, $150 for paralegals |
Allegations of Overbilling and Block Billing
The attorneys for Stuart and Kizzar billed 1,352.75 hours at rates ranging from $550 to $850 per hour. However, Vogelsberg identified several problems with their billing records, including:
- Excessive Billing: Many entries were deemed “extremely excessive, duplicative, unrelated, or administrative.”
- Block Billing: Vogelsberg found 192 instances of “block billing,” where multiple tasks were grouped into a single time entry without specifying time spent on each task. She argued this practice is “confusing and lacks transparency.”
- Billing at Attorney Rates for Administrative Tasks: Vogelsberg noted that tasks like filing documents, preparing exhibits, and organizing materials were charged at attorney rates, which she said is inappropriate.
Revised Hourly Rates Suggested by the City
Vogelsberg requested the court to adjust the hourly rates for the attorneys as follows:
| Attorney/Service | Requested Hourly Rate | Proposed Hourly Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Mark Jess | $850 | $450 |
| Eric Playter | $760 | $300 |
| Christie Jess (Attorney) | $650 | $300 |
| Chris Playter | $550 | $250 |
| Christie Jess (Paralegal) | Not specified | $150 |
Jury Awards $489,000 in Damages to Stuart and Kizzar
In September 2023, a federal jury ruled unanimously that the city discriminated against Stuart and Kizzar based on gender by promoting a less-qualified male candidate.
The jury awarded the plaintiffs $200,000 each in compensatory damages for emotional suffering and mental anguish. Additionally, Stuart received $35,277.58 in back pay and $42,593.67 in front pay, while Kizzar was awarded $11,059.70 in back pay.
City Challenges Billing Discrepancies
Vogelsberg pointed out discrepancies in the attorneys’ billing records. The attorneys’ motion claimed fees of $915,162.50, but their Excel spreadsheets only totaled $900,617.50, indicating a mismatch. She also emphasized that the billing practices included routine administrative tasks charged at attorney rates, which she deemed unacceptable.
FAQs
1. Why is the City of Topeka challenging the attorneys’ fees?
The city claims the attorneys’ fees are excessive, include duplicative entries, and charge attorney rates for non-attorney tasks.
2. What is block billing, and why is it an issue?
Block billing involves grouping multiple tasks into a single time entry without specifying the time spent on each task. It is criticized for being unclear and non-transparent.
3. How much did the jury award to Stuart and Kizzar?
The jury awarded the plaintiffs $489,000 in total, including compensatory damages, back pay, and front pay.
4. What hourly rates does the city propose for the attorneys?
The city suggests hourly rates of $450 for Mark Jess, $300 for Eric Playter and Christie Jess, $250 for Chris Playter, and $150 for paralegal services.
5. Has the court made a decision on the attorneys’ fees?
As of now, Judge John W. Broomes has not yet ruled on the matter.
